Apple's Dream for the Future: Communications
Marc N. Barrett
impressed with what he had to say. He basically explained Apple's long-term
vision for the future. He said that Apple had analyzed what computers were
used for in the past and what they were being used for today, and concluded
something about the future. He said that personal computers were used
primarily for data processing at first, but that this use of personal
computers was in decline. He said that computers today are being used for
communications more and more, and that Apple expects that use of computers
to not only to continue but to greatly expand. He said that communications
is what Apple is gearing all of their long-term plans around.
I think this vision of the future for computers is a correct one. It
probably surprises no one that I use computers almost 100% for communications,
and I think this is true for MANY people. This vision by Apple can be
seen in their newest computers, the C660AV and Q840AV. Both of these systems
have almost EVERYTHING you need to do two-way audio/video teleconferencing
over an ethernet connection -- everything except the video camera. The
C660AV and Q840AV come with audio output and audio input, video output and
video input, ethernet, and the two-way a/v teleconferencing software all in
standard hardware/software. Further, you can buy a package, at extra cost
(I don't know how much extra cost), to do multi-way video teleconferencing
over an ethernet connection. Finally, I see Apple, sometime soon, developing
a monitor with a video camera built-in and making this monitor standard with
special packages, so that a person would have everything they'd need for
desktop audio/video teleconferencing right there in standard hardware and
software. (The camera would likely be like the one built-into AT&T's
VideoPhone).
Let's see what one would have to add to an Amiga to do desktop audio/video
teleconferencing:
Audio/video teleconferencing software -- Sorry, doesn't exist for the
Amiga.
A DSP card to do the real-time compression of the video images so they
don't take up a lot of ethernet bandwidth -- $1300.
Real-time framegrabber -- Does this exist for the Amiga?
Ethernet card -- $200.
So, you could spend $2000 in hardware on an already-expensive $2500
A4000 and still not have the hardware and software to do two-way a/v
teleconferencing, while for $2500 a Mac Centris 660AV comes with everything
(except the camera) as standard hardware and software.
It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
of computing. Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
and do it very inexpensively. You only need to add a $100 gadget that plugs
into the serial port anf gives you an RJ11 telephone jack (I agree this
gadget should be standard hardware with AV Macs); this gadget also allows
the AV Mac's DSP to serve as a 9600 bps faxmodem modem. Again, all the
software to allow the DSP to serve as a modem and the Mac to serve as an
answering machine is standard software with AV Macs. With these capabilities,
the Mac is a truly unified communications machine -- it can do desktop
audio/video teleconferencing, send faxes, receive faxes, place calls
(you'd talk into a microphone plugged into the audio digitizer port), and
even take commands over the phone (I'll get into that next), all in one
system.
This ability to take commands over the phone could be handy, if you were
careful with it. The AV Mac's voice recognition can be set up to trigger
with a keyword, like "computer". You could give it a secret keyword, then
use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
For this feature to work would require software to be written to exploit it,
and I expect third-party companies to write such software. My point again
is that a $2500 A4000 could not do it even if you spent $2000 on additional
hardware for it, while, for $2500, a Mac C660AV comes with (almost) everything
to make it possible all in standard hardware (all except that $100 gadget,
which should be included as standard).
+++++++
++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
+
M Smyth
Sorry, automatic reaction to MB posts...
Martin &
David A. Rollins
[lots of dreck deleted.....]
Looking at your header, one wonders why you did not post any of this
wonderful news to any of the Macintosh or Apple groups.
> Let's see what one would have to add to an Amiga to do desktop audio/video
>teleconferencing:
> Audio/video teleconferencing software -- Sorry, doesn't exist for the
> Amiga.
Not yet. Why not put your expertise where your mouth is and write it.
> A DSP card to do the real-time compression of the video images so they
> don't take up a lot of ethernet bandwidth -- $1300.
Yes. So what? ......and why would you want anyone think that Apple does
all this efficiently? Apple's networking solutions suck big time.
> Real-time framegrabber -- Does this exist for the Amiga?
Yes. I own one. It's called a Mimetics Framebuffer. There are quite
a few realtime framegrabbers and framebuffers on the Amiga market.
In fact, I think that this type of technology was first available on
the Amiga platform for personal computers. Where have you been?
> Ethernet card -- $200.
Again, so what? They are available, and they work much better on the
Amiga platform than on the Apple/Macintosh platform.
> So, you could spend $2000 in hardware on an already-expensive $2500
>A4000 and still not have the hardware and software to do two-way a/v
>teleconferencing, while for $2500 a Mac Centris 660AV comes with everything
>(except the camera) as standard hardware and software.
Yes that is true, but it still is not an Amiga. This is an Amiga
advocacy group. Please take your drivel to some Apple or Macintosh group
where they can be persuaded that what you are saying is truth. You
will get no converts here. We all know better.
$2500 is not expensive for a workable computer with all the features
of the Amiga. I will not go into them as we all know what they are.
> It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
>of computing.
Really? Are you related to Nostradamus? How do you know this?
I write software for the Amiga, Mac, SGI, IBM-Compats, Sun.... This
is all news to me. What is your source? How could you have a clue
as to what Commodore's vision is for the future?
Puhleeeeeeeese, give it a rest.
Has Commodore done something to hurt you? If Commodore has done
something to hurt you, then bother Commodore. We have done nothing
to hurt you here in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, so why do you insist
on bothering everybody here with your nonsense?
I swore that I would stay out of this, but I like to read the real
and funny information that gets placed here. You make it so
unpleasant. Don't you have a life? Have you ever heard of girls ,or
if you go that way, guys. Go out and find someone who can make you
ejaculate, because you obviously need some kind of release. This
newsgroup is really tired of you jerking us off. We're spent. It's
time to lay back and smoke the cigarette. Slam the door behind you.
Take the hint!
>Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
>Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
>their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
Who the heck cares? I don't give a damn what Apple's vision is.
It is quite possible that Commodore did not want to saddle its
customers with a lame product, such as Appletalk, which has to
be the slowest and unfriendliest networking system available today!.
>The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
>faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
That suits me fine. That's why I bought an Amiga. I would never consider
an Apple product for graphics and color for production of video and
virtual reality simulations; at least not at the present time.
My partner worked for a company that only used Macs for desktop
publishing, kiosks, and video production. I had to listen to him
bitch about how terrible the Macs are for three years. He owned an
Amiga 3000 for two years, and just recently bought another one. We
use both of his A3000s and both of my A2000s for video production,
3D object construction, and logo development. Our next investments will
probably be the SGI INDY, but after that we intend to buy two A4000Ts.
We would never consider a Mac. We own the Amax2+. That is as close as
we want to get to an Apple computer. I take that back. We may get
an Emplant board, but that will allow us to run more than just Mac
software when the other capabilities become available.
> BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
>telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
>and do it very inexpensively. You only need to add a $100 gadget that plugs
>into the serial port anf gives you an RJ11 telephone jack (I agree this
>gadget should be standard hardware with AV Macs); this gadget also allows
>the AV Mac's DSP to serve as a 9600 bps faxmodem modem. Again, all the
>software to allow the DSP to serve as a modem and the Mac to serve as an
>answering machine is standard software with AV Macs. With these capabilities,
>the Mac is a truly unified communications machine -- it can do desktop
>audio/video teleconferencing, send faxes, receive faxes, place calls
>(you'd talk into a microphone plugged into the audio digitizer port), and
>even take commands over the phone (I'll get into that next), all in one
>system.
That's very nice. Why is it that it has not helped you to communicate
any better? It just goes to show you, "garbage in, garbage out.
Macs do not multitask very well. What are you going to do while your
Mac is duplicating that incoming fax, or while it is processing the
outgoing fax? Give me a break. At least, the Amiga will allow me to
do other things while all the other tasks are running, and I do mean
running, not waiting for the other tasks to finish.
> This ability to take commands over the phone could be handy, if you were
>careful with it. The AV Mac's voice recognition can be set up to trigger
>with a keyword, like "computer". You could give it a secret keyword, then
>use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
>For this feature to work would require software to be written to exploit it,
>and I expect third-party companies to write such software. My point again
>is that a $2500 A4000 could not do it even if you spent $2000 on additional
>hardware for it, while, for $2500, a Mac C660AV comes with (almost) everything
>to make it possible all in standard hardware (all except that $100 gadget,
>which should be included as standard).
That is a crock. I use Voiceshell, a version of VCLI. I can talk to
my Amiga and it allows me to place phone calls, run scripts, operate
the VideoToaster, etc., etc., etc. The software is freeware. The
audio digitizer cost me $35. It can work on all Amigas. Where do you
get your information, Marc?
Voiceshell, Animan, and VCLI already do this and have been doing this
for more than a year now, probably longer. My audio digitizer cost me
a mere $35. It works great.
As for using the Amiga as an answering machine, I believe that
a product called the PhonePak can handle this. I am not sure about it,
though. Maybe someone who has one can verify this.
Lastly, communication does not mean hardware. Communication
means the intercourse by words, letters, or messages. During this, we
interchange thoughts or opinions. You have attempted to postulate
opinion as fact. Although this may be considered communication, it is
actually propaganda. Do some research before you spew out any more
nonsense. I think that I am being much nicer to you than many others
will.
When you reply to me, and I am sure that you will, try to do it in a
mature way. Give me facts facts facts, not bull bull bull. If you
decide to descend into your usual defensive pose and start raving,
you will get no response from me. I'll not let you drag me into your
domain of insecurity.
>+++++++
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
> +
--
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
David Rollins - Amiga Ninjitsumo | I'M GOOD ENOUGH...
Email: dro...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu | I'M SMART ENOUGH...
Voice: (910) 763-4115 | AND DOGGONE IT, PEOPLE LIKE ME!
KENNEDY JAMES SCOT
> I attended a short demo given by an Apple rep recently, and I was fairly
>impressed with what he had to say. He basically explained Apple's long-term
>vision for the future. He said that Apple had analyzed what computers were
Apple's vision of the future: one-button mice. :-)
No great loss IMO. Only a business would be interested in teleconferencing
anyhow. Do you think video professionals or home users would be interested
in this? I don't think so.
> A DSP card to do the real-time compression of the video images so they
> don't take up a lot of ethernet bandwidth -- $1300.
How did you arrive at the figure of $1300 for a DSP card? BTW, something
like the FMV card for the CD^32 would probably allow you to do what
you've described. Might even be faster too.
> Real-time framegrabber -- Does this exist for the Amiga?
Yes. The framegrabber that comes with the AV Macs isn't real-time as
far as I know. More Apple marketing hype I suppose...
> Ethernet card -- $200.
Big deal...This shouldn't add much to your total system cost.
> So, you could spend $2000 in hardware on an already-expensive $2500
This $2000 figure is grossly overinflated. You could buy all of these
hardware items for much less than this, A4000 excluded.
>A4000 and still not have the hardware and software to do two-way a/v
>teleconferencing, while for $2500 a Mac Centris 660AV comes with everything
>(except the camera) as standard hardware and software.
Joy! You'd have your very own pet Macintrash then! I can hardly wait to
try one out! :-)
>
> It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
>of computing. Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. Commodore is working on
multimedia, which is a growing field, support for the Amiga. The CD^32
and AmigaVision is evidence of this. Also, things like networking and
DSP support is on its way. It looks like Commodore is trying to
position the Amiga as a video/multimedia platform.
>Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
>their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
Wrong. Commodore hasn't given up on networking; it has just been delayed.
Besides, what's wrong with Commodore involving 3rd parties with development
of networking? Nothing as far as I can tell. Am I disappointed that
networking has been put on hold? Yes, I am. But, I'm hopeful that
enhanced networking support will be available for the Amiga in the future.
>The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
>faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
You know that this isn't true...you're a sad case Marc.
> BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
>telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
>and do it very inexpensively. You only need to add a $100 gadget that plugs
>into the serial port anf gives you an RJ11 telephone jack (I agree this
>gadget should be standard hardware with AV Macs); this gadget also allows
>the AV Mac's DSP to serve as a 9600 bps faxmodem modem. Again, all the
>software to allow the DSP to serve as a modem and the Mac to serve as an
>answering machine is standard software with AV Macs. With these capabilities,
>the Mac is a truly unified communications machine -- it can do desktop
>audio/video teleconferencing, send faxes, receive faxes, place calls
>(you'd talk into a microphone plugged into the audio digitizer port), and
>even take commands over the phone (I'll get into that next), all in one
>system.
I'll concede you that these are nice features but these things are only
useful if you *need* them. Personally, I'd rather buy an Amiga because
it allows me to do the things that *I* want to do. I feel like I'm
hand-cuffed when I'm using a Mac so I prefer to use an Amiga for most
things. Stuff like voice recognition, two-way video conferencing,
and faxing are just merely window dressing if most everything else
about your computer system is poorly designed, hard to use,
unresponsive or whatever. The key thing to remember is this:
CHOOSE THE COMPUTER THAT ENABLES YOU TO BE PRODUCTIVE! In my case
it's the Amiga and Unix systems. I'm going to be getting OS/2
next week; it may allow me to make productive use of my 486 system
as well. Is the Mac Centris 660AV a better deal than the A4000?
Perhaps...but if a Mac doesn't allow you to do things the way
*you* want to do them and the Amiga does then the Amiga may be a
better deal for *you*.
> This ability to take commands over the phone could be handy, if you were
>careful with it. The AV Mac's voice recognition can be set up to trigger
>with a keyword, like "computer". You could give it a secret keyword, then
>use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
>For this feature to work would require software to be written to exploit it,
>and I expect third-party companies to write such software. My point again
>is that a $2500 A4000 could not do it even if you spent $2000 on additional
I'd like to point out that you've selected a very *limited* set of criteria
in which to compare the Amiga to a Mac 660AV. What you've *failed* to do
is point out the Mac's deficiencies and the Amiga's advantages. Therefore,
your comparsion was very unbalanced. I could just as easily choose my
own set of *narrow* criteria so that I'd be able to *unfairly* evaluate
the Macintosh line. Please try to be fair the next time you compare
computer systems.
>hardware for it, while, for $2500, a Mac C660AV comes with (almost) everything
I noticed that you didn't mention anything about the extra RAM and stuff you'd
probably have to buy in order to make the 660AV perform well. System 7 is a
real memory hog; I wouldn't want to run a Mac with anything less than 8 megs
myself. An Amiga, on the other hand, runs pretty damn good in 4 megs.
>to make it possible all in standard hardware (all except that $100 gadget,
>which should be included as standard).
>
>+++++++
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
> +
---Scott
"Amiga - the computer for the residue of the rest of us." :-)
Brent Busby
Refering to a previous article by dro...@seq.uncwil.edu (David A. Rollins):
[...]
>Yes that is true, but it still is not an Amiga. This is an Amiga
>advocacy group. Please take your drivel to some Apple or Macintosh group
>where they can be persuaded that what you are saying is truth. You
>will get no converts here. We all know better.
I thought this was an Amiga technical discussion group; the advocacy
part is theoretically supposed to be what comp.sys.amiga.advocacy is
for. The tone of his article seemed to truly be sympathetic to the
Amiga (at least that's what I got out of it) - but harsh and grim
and not painting rosy pictures of things he saw as downfalls.
While I have to say you're right about there being absolutely no
shortage of easily available realtime framebuffers for the Amiga,
I also have to agree with him about Commodore. Commodore has had
to downsize itself recently, laying off a painful percentage of
their best and brightest people, while Apple has the capital to
make expansive moves like this and make plans for the future that
go further than just attempting to feel safe about whether they'll
have a company next year and be able to pay off their debts.
And as I say this, realize that I am a raving Commodore enthusiast.
I have absolutely no ill will toward Amiga users. I just realize
that these are bad times for Commodore and if we are open minded
we should allow open criticisms and comparisons to the competition's
products. An Amiga is a great thing in and of itself, but we've
all got to watch out for Apple and IBM, too.
[...]
>Has Commodore done something to hurt you? If Commodore has done
>something to hurt you, then bother Commodore. We have done nothing
>to hurt you here in comp.sys.amiga.advocacy, so why do you insist
>on bothering everybody here with your nonsense?
In comp.sys.amiga.advocacy this would be off topic, but please
stop the flamage in comp.sys.amiga.datacomm. If there's something
new in the world of Macintosh telecommunications that could threaten
the Amiga, I'd like to be able to hear about it without having to
read the mac newsgroups.
And as for what Commodore could have possibly done to hurt people,
how about nearly ten years of bad business and marketing?
>I swore that I would stay out of this, but I like to read the real
>and funny information that gets placed here. You make it so
>unpleasant. Don't you have a life? Have you ever heard of girls ,or
>if you go that way, guys. Go out and find someone who can make you
>ejaculate, because you obviously need some kind of release. This
This is also off topic in comp.sys.amiga.datacomm. Take it to alt.sex.
>newsgroup is really tired of you jerking us off. We're spent. It's
>time to lay back and smoke the cigarette. Slam the door behind you.
[...]
--
Brent Busby, also known as Sequencer, SysOp of Kaleidoscope One C-Net 128 BBS!
* MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI * MIDI *
==============================================================================
------------------------<< C-Net 128 v4.0 Support BBS >>----------------------
Spice, Darrell G.
>I thought this was an Amiga technical discussion group; the advocacy
>part is theoretically supposed to be what comp.sys.amiga.advocacy is
>for. The tone of his article seemed to truly be sympathetic to the
>Amiga (at least that's what I got out of it) - but harsh and grim
>and not painting rosy pictures of things he saw as downfalls.
True, but you appear to have not seen any of Marc's postings before...
Marc (for as long as I can remember reading these news groups) has made it his
hell bent mission to put down the Amiga and Commodore in ANY and WHATEVER way
he can think of. A lot of the time it contains invalid information, or just
pure speculation that is posted as if it were fact. It is possible that he
has an inferiourity conflict about his choice of computers so must lash out
at the Amiga. If you were to read his messages and believe them, you would
go out sell your Amiga and buy a Mac because the Mac is "So obviously superior".
Of course he doesn't ever tell about problems with Macs. He talks about how
they have great networking built in(sure its built in, but it is slower than
molases on a winters day) and never talks about how unstable the OS is. We
have a bunch of Mac's at work, and at LEAST once a month I have to totally
reinstall the OS on each machine because it will start to lock up, or just
reset the computer for no apparent reason. I've only had to reinstall on
my Amiga once, and that was because of something I did on accident while
looking around the system files.
Anyhow, for future reference, the best bet is to just ignore Marc and his
posts. It is sad to see an individual with such a vendetta against a computer.
Darrell Spice Jr. //
ST...@Rosie.Uh.Edu \X/
Michael van Elst
> I attended a short demo given by an Apple rep recently, and I was fairly
>impressed with what he had to say.
Who would have guessed that ? :)
> It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
>of computing.
... visions are one thing. What you can produce cheaply now is a different
thing. Hmm, most supercomputer manufacturers develop massively parallel
computers, where is Apples real-time machine vision system based on an
massively parallel architecture ? Matter of fact: they couldn't sell it
to their customers. Matter of fact: C= can't sell $3000 'teleconferencing'
computers to their customers.
>answering machine is standard software with AV Macs. With these capabilities,
>the Mac is a truly unified communications machine -- it can do desktop
>audio/video teleconferencing, send faxes, receive faxes, place calls
>(you'd talk into a microphone plugged into the audio digitizer port), and
>even take commands over the phone (I'll get into that next), all in one
>system.
With the same compromises as with every 'all-in-one' system. E.g. when
V.fast becomes 'standard' in a few months then you can forget that 'built-in'
modem capabilities.
>use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
You dream a lot :)
Regards,
--
Michael van Elst
UUCP: universe!local-cluster!milky-way!sol!earth!uunet!unido!mpirbn!p554mve
Internet: p55...@mpirbn.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de
"A potential Snark may lurk in every tree."
Marc N. Barrett
>With the same compromises as with every 'all-in-one' system. E.g. when
>V.fast becomes 'standard' in a few months then you can forget that 'built-in'
>modem capabilities.
Bullshit. The 3210 DSP can handle V.fast easily. It can handle 14.4Kbps
easily, but AT&T won't let Apple include anything higher than 9600 bps as
standard software. Mac users can get a package from AT&T to let their AV
Macs do 14.4Kbps, and presumably the same will be true of V.fast.
Seidel Daniel F
>In article <1993Sep19.1...@mpifr-bonn.mpg.de> mle...@speckled.mpifr-bonn.mpg.de (Michael van Elst) writes:
>>With the same compromises as with every 'all-in-one' system. E.g. when
>>V.fast becomes 'standard' in a few months then you can forget that 'built-in'
>>modem capabilities.
>
> Bullshit. The 3210 DSP can handle V.fast easily. It can handle 14.4Kbps
>easily, but AT&T won't let Apple include anything higher than 9600 bps as
>standard software. Mac users can get a package from AT&T to let their AV
>Macs do 14.4Kbps, and presumably the same will be true of V.fast.
**********
The two doth not carry equal weight...
David A. Rollins
> I attended a short demo given by an Apple rep recently, and I was fairly
>impressed with what he had to say. He basically explained Apple's long-term
>vision for the future. He said that Apple had analyzed what computers were
>used for in the past and what they were being used for today, and concluded
>something about the future. He said that personal computers were used
>primarily for data processing at first, but that this use of personal
>computers was in decline. He said that computers today are being used for
>communications more and more, and that Apple expects that use of computers
>to not only to continue but to greatly expand. He said that communications
>is what Apple is gearing all of their long-term plans around.
Alright. So what? Go tell it to an Apple or Macintosh group.
> I think this vision of the future for computers is a correct one. It
>probably surprises no one that I use computers almost 100% for communications,
>and I think this is true for MANY people.
Yes, but not most. A majority of computer users have no idea of how to
use a modem. You should hear some of the question they ask about what
they should buy and attribute these strange powers to "THE MODEM."
>This vision by Apple can be
>seen in their newest computers, the C660AV and Q840AV. Both of these systems
>have almost EVERYTHING you need to do two-way audio/video teleconferencing
>over an ethernet connection -- everything except the video camera. The
>C660AV and Q840AV come with audio output and audio input, video output and
>video input, ethernet, and the two-way a/v teleconferencing software all in
>standard hardware/software. Further, you can buy a package, at extra cost
>(I don't know how much extra cost), to do multi-way video teleconferencing
>over an ethernet connection. Finally, I see Apple, sometime soon, developing
>a monitor with a video camera built-in and making this monitor standard with
>special packages, so that a person would have everything they'd need for
>desktop audio/video teleconferencing right there in standard hardware and
>software. (The camera would likely be like the one built-into AT&T's
>VideoPhone).
Okay. That's great. Go tell it to the Mac and Apple users. I think that
they would love to hear about this much more than Amiga people.
> Let's see what one would have to add to an Amiga to do desktop audio/video
>teleconferencing:
> Audio/video teleconferencing software -- Sorry, doesn't exist for the
> Amiga.
Not yet, that I know of, but the possibility of it being developed in
the near future or the present is high. Why not put your talent where
your mouth is and develop one, since you seem to be so concerned about
what Amiga users have and do not have.
> A DSP card to do the real-time compression of the video images so they
> don't take up a lot of ethernet bandwidth -- $1300.
Hey, Ethernet works satisfactorily on Amiga. I don't know any Amiga user
who could sit patiently for any network that responds like Appletalk.
Appletalk has to be the biggest joke in the industry. When it's
operating everything seems to shut down except Appletalk. Not my
choice for running on the Amiga.
> Real-time framegrabber -- Does this exist for the Amiga?
Yes. I own of brand of many available brands for the Amiga. Mine is the
Mimetics Framebuffer. It captures in realtime and displays a 24-bit
output on an NTSC composite output. There are many such boards available
for the Amiga at various price levels, depending on what features one
needs.
> Ethernet card -- $200.
Yes. What's your point? Ethernet is available for Amiga. So are other
simple solutions such as PARNET, SERNET, and SCSI-NET.
> So, you could spend $2000 in hardware on an already-expensive $2500
>A4000 and still not have the hardware and software to do two-way a/v
>teleconferencing, while for $2500 a Mac Centris 660AV comes with everything
>(except the camera) as standard hardware and software.
I think I see the problem with you. Deep down insisde you would really
like to own an Amiga, but you cannot afford one. So, you spend your time
putting it down to throw people off the scent that you cannot afford
one. The only valid criticism you make of the Amiga is its price. The
other criticisms are just the icing to cover the real issue. Your other
criticisms are not valid.
> It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
>of computing.
It should? Why should it be clear to you and not anyone else?
>Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
>Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
>their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
That may have been a very smart move by Commodore. That way some other
company can design a really efficient networking system that will get
no complaints. My partner worked for a company that used Macs
exclusively for desktop publishing, kiosks, and video production. I
had to listen to him bitch about Macs for three years, hear him extol
the values of the Amiga and how he hated to go to work, but loved to
come home to his Amiga.
>The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
>faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
I bought the Amiga for that very reason. I own two A2000s and an A1000.
My partner owns two A3000s. I have bridgeboards in mine. He has Amax2+
in his. They are seldom used, but when they are used, it is to test
the objects and software we have developed on the Amiga and ported to
those platforms.
Our next computer investment will be the SGI Indy, probably. After we
exhaust most of our money there, we will then buy the A4000T, or A5000
if there ever will be such a thing.
We would never consider an Apple brand commputer for the type of
business we operate. I would buy a PC-compat before I would buy an
Apple product, and I would never buy a PC-compatible, at least not
today.
> BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
>telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
>and do it very inexpensively. You only need to add a $100 gadget that plugs
>into the serial port anf gives you an RJ11 telephone jack (I agree this
>gadget should be standard hardware with AV Macs); this gadget also allows
>the AV Mac's DSP to serve as a 9600 bps faxmodem modem. Again, all the
>software to allow the DSP to serve as a modem and the Mac to serve as an
>answering machine is standard software with AV Macs. With these capabilities,
>the Mac is a truly unified communications machine -- it can do desktop
>audio/video teleconferencing, send faxes, receive faxes, place calls
>(you'd talk into a microphone plugged into the audio digitizer port), and
>even take commands over the phone (I'll get into that next), all in one
>system.
Wow! Really? Well what are you going to do while your Mac is answering
and receiving those faxes? Macs do not multitask very well. So, what
will you do to keep yourself occupied while the Mac is performing its
fax/voicemail tasks?
I believe that a product called the GVP PhonePak does these things
that you have described. So, it is not foreign to the Amiga.
Why would a Mac user want to bog down his computer by using it as an
answering machine when you can get a dedicated device to do that from
K-Mart for about $30? Do you do that much business that you need a
fax machine? If so, then why are you always crying about the high price
of Amiga?
> This ability to take commands over the phone could be handy, if you were
>careful with it. The AV Mac's voice recognition can be set up to trigger
>with a keyword, like "computer". You could give it a secret keyword, then
>use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
>For this feature to work would require software to be written to exploit it,
>and I expect third-party companies to write such software. My point again
>is that a $2500 A4000 could not do it even if you spent $2000 on additional
>hardware for it, while, for $2500, a Mac C660AV comes with (almost) everything
>to make it possible all in standard hardware (all except that $100 gadget,
>which should be included as standard).
I can already do this with my PerfectSound Audio Digitizer which cost me
$35. I use it with Voiceshell. Also available are VCLI and Animan, which
perform the same tasks. My computer listens to me and does what it is
programmed to do at the sound of my voice.
What's the big deal?
>+++++++
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
> +
The above is Marc's post and my response. Below is Marc's response and
my response to him.
PS - In all fairness, my original response never posted. I do not know
what happened to it. However, it was also sent to Marc directly in
email. The above response is close to the original comments of the lost
post and the email sent to Marc.
>From bar...@iastate.edu Sun Sep 19 14:00:45 1993
>Received: from iastate.edu by seq.cms.uncwil.edu with SMTP id AA10946
> (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <dro...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu>); Sun, 19 Sep 1993 14:00:35 -0400
>Received: by iastate.edu with sendmail-5.57/4.7
> id <AA0...@iastate.edu>; Sun, 19 Sep 93 12:59:47 -0500
>From: bar...@iastate.edu
>Message-Id: <930919175...@iastate.edu>
>To: "David A. Rollins" <dro...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu>
>Subject: Re: Apple's Dream for the Future: Communications
>In-Reply-To: Your message of Sun, 19 Sep 93 02:26:32 -0400.
> <1993091906...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu>
>Date: Sun, 19 Sep 93 12:59:46 CDT
>Status: OR
>
>
> Your reply was 100% bullshit, but there is one thing that is utter
>bullshit. There is a far bigger difference between the Mac's voice recognition
>and the Amiga "VCLI" program than there is between the Amiga's multitasking
>and the Mac's multitasking.
>
>
> -Marc
>
Well, Marc, I talked about much much more than just VCLI. Maybe you are
so down on Amiga because you have no comprehension of what its capabilities
are. I do not believe I used one profane expression in my remarks to you.
If this is your idea of an intelligent reply, then it is no wonder that
you do not understand the Amiga. Everybody knows that the Mac is for
those people who are computer-illiterate. The Mac is not just friendly,
it is electronic daycare for adults.
Michael van Elst
> Bullshit. The 3210 DSP can handle V.fast easily.
So you start with a 'fact' which in the end just becomes an opinion and vague
possibility.
Don't you believe in your 'facts' anymore ? More and more articles of yours
can't keep the 'facts' over more than 10 lines before turning into ambiguity.
Ted Badiuk
>so down on Amiga because you have no comprehension of what its capabilities
>are. I do not believe I used one profane expression in my remarks to you.
>If this is your idea of an intelligent reply, then it is no wonder that
>you do not understand the Amiga. Everybody knows that the Mac is for
>those people who are computer-illiterate. The Mac is not just friendly,
>it is electronic daycare for adults. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks. That's just the line I've been looking for for my sig.
>--
>|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
>David Rollins - Amiga Ninjitsumo | I'M GOOD ENOUGH...
>Email: dro...@seq.cms.uncwil.edu | I'M SMART ENOUGH...
>Voice: (910) 763-4115 | AND DOGGONE IT, PEOPLE LIKE ME!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Badiuk is umba...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
CompSci III - University Of Manitoba, Canada
"The Mac is not only friendly, it is electronic daycare for adults" - D.R
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Hegyi
> ...
> ... much blathering deleted
> ...
> BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
> telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
> and do it very inexpensively. You only need to add a $100 gadget that plugs
> into the serial port anf gives you an RJ11 telephone jack (I agree this
> gadget should be standard hardware with AV Macs); this gadget also allows
> the AV Mac's DSP to serve as a 9600 bps faxmodem modem. Again, all the
> software to allow the DSP to serve as a modem and the Mac to serve as an
> answering machine is standard software with AV Macs. With these capabilities,
> the Mac is a truly unified communications machine -- it can do desktop
> audio/video teleconferencing, send faxes, receive faxes, place calls
> (you'd talk into a microphone plugged into the audio digitizer port), and
> even take commands over the phone (I'll get into that next), all in one
> system.
>
I see you've kept up with Mac technology, Marc, but are not keeping as
well informed about the Amiga.
There exists a device called the GVP PhonePak which is an excellent
voice mail / telephone answering machine.
The PhonePak is a Zorro card which fits into any A2000/A3000/A4000.
It can:
- answer the phone.
- receive faxes.
- play greetings.
- record messages into any number of personalized mail boxes.
- input commands via touch-tone (I admit, no voice recog. yet)
- forward calls
- Perform any operation via ARexx.
- (see GVP's advertizing blurbs for more info)
Currently, we are using the PhonePak for our office communication.
I have my mail box set up to:
1) answer and record messages and faxes.
2) call my pager when the message is finished.
3) forward the message to my work station via E-Mail.
4) Automatically send faxes when I print to the fax printer driver.
The beauty of this system is that nobody has to know where I am, or what
my home phone number is... they just call the public number, and I
am informed within seconds and can return the call. It also saves
cellular charges: nobody calls my cell-phone.
.daryl hegyi.
Da...@HSD.tfbbs.wimsey.COM
Big Goomba
impressed with what I saw. A lot of the stuff I saw was not all
that wonderful. The DSP is nice. On both machines (a direct quote)
you need 16 meg of ram to work with the voice recognition stuff. A lot
of the tech. showed seemed like stuff that has been around for a while
but nobody found any practicle use. The teleconfrencing(sp) was at a slow
sampling rate and over a direct hook up only and on a tiny square in the middle
of the screen.(I dont think it got any bigger either) The ability to dictate
to the machine is not available yet so being able to talk to your computer is
not good for much other than impressing people.(Only if you talk slowly and
very clearly. Many commands had to be repeated.) The voices the computer
used to talk were kind of shitty also.
bye.
Russell McOrmond
: It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
: of computing. Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
: Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
: their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
: The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
: faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
I think we finally agree on something. This has been my impression of
CBM, and the recent announcement that they have dropped their networking
support(To allow someone else to pick it up) has become a deciding factor
for my own computer use. In essence, I am moving totally away from
AmigaDOS and moving upward. I personally don't expect Commodore or the
Amiga to last much more into the future, so definitely don't want to be
tied to this proprietary system.
It is unfortunate that Apple has a clear vision of the major future
applications of computer technology. It had been my hope that such
a negative force as far as intellectual property was concerned was going
to die out in the future. Maybe as they move into the field of networking
they will begin to recognize that interoperability is the name of the game,
and they will give up their destructive legal tactics and again become
a force for positive change.
: ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
: ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
---
Russell McOrmond, Ottawa Ontario, Canada Standard Disclaimer applies.
Phone: (613) 231-7144 , Freenet: aa...@freenet.carleton.ca
"Networking is about communication, PEOPLE communicating"
Asher Wizard Feldman
For someone who claims to be such an "expert" on the Amiga's "shortcomings"
you are pretty ignorant. It seems like you keep up on every thing Apple
ever says or does, but haven't paid any atention to the current state of
Amiga hardware for the past five years. You make Ross Perot look like he
knows what he's talking about.
--
_ _ ___ _ as...@shell.portal.com | Wiz...@cup.portal.com |
/\\ |\\ /| || // \ /\\ "I will not be pushed, filed, indexed, stamped,
/__\\ | \\ /|| ||(< __ /__\\ briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my
/ \\| \X || || \\_||/ \\ own." -- The Prisoner
Michael Robert Bromery
I don't know what some people are saying others should knock off the Amiga
for the Apple. I know that I will not and can not ever be persuaded to switch
off the amiga. Why? Because I tried every other computer first. Yes, Amiga
is the last platform I have gone and tried out and I liked it the best. I
liked the OS the best, and I liked what it could do for me. And basically,
I would like to read this newsgroup without hearing the apple jive, ok????
I see the apples and the IBMs and the Nexts, and the stuff all of the time.
Let's say, I get around. But it's the Amiga all the way for me, and others
believe the same because of what they found out. I will quote another wise
person on the net by saying, "The truth about Amiga cuts much more credit
and value than the hype on some others." It's a fact. I find out stuff that
is cooler everyday on this machine, and I usually feel kind of stuck when
I explore some other OS systems. For me, what was a truly active Mac then
IBM advocate, kind of changed when I was introduced to this machine. I still
look and explore to see if the others really got it. And after that kind of
comparison, No amount of hype advertising will ever change my opinion. I'm
pretty sure lots of others can say the same.
-- Mike Bromery.
Email: dave...@wam.umd.edu
Marc N. Barrett
Can it:
Act as a 14.4Kbps or V.fast modem?
Be made compatible with the AT&T VideoPhone?
Do 2-way or multi-way audio/video teleconferencing over an ethernet
connection?
The PhonePak is an interesting product, but it has nowhere near the
overwhelming flexibility that the AV Macs give you with their built-in
3210 DSP.
Tom Denbo
That Mark would leave c.s.a forever!
--
Tom Denbo
tde...@eis.calstate.edu
Michael Cianflone
>>
>>There exists a device called the GVP PhonePak which is an excellent
>>voice mail / telephone answering machine.
>>
>>The PhonePak is a Zorro card which fits into any A2000/A3000/A4000.
>>
>>It can:
>> - answer the phone.
>> - receive faxes.
>> - play greetings.
>> - record messages into any number of personalized mail boxes.
>> - input commands via touch-tone (I admit, no voice recog. yet)
>> - forward calls
>> - Perform any operation via ARexx.
>> - (see GVP's advertizing blurbs for more info)
>
> Can it:
> Act as a 14.4Kbps or V.fast modem?
> Be made compatible with the AT&T VideoPhone?
> Do 2-way or multi-way audio/video teleconferencing over an ethernet
> connection?
>
> The PhonePak is an interesting product, but it has nowhere near the
>overwhelming flexibility that the AV Macs give you with their built-in
>3210 DSP.
>
>+++++++
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
> +
The 3210 can not emulate a v.32 bis nor faster modem. It can only
emulate a v.32 9600bps modem. The CODEC only allows for 9600bps transfer.
One will need to purchase v.32bis modem to do transfers above 9600bps, which
is another expense.
Charles Marks
Well from my understanding Commodore has developed thier networking hardware,
but has decided not to manufacture this hardware, because they want to dedicate
more to the computer itself. They are offering to let others manufacture this
hardware and place that companies nameon it for use within the amiga. This is
my eyes will open more avenues and maybe give us a few manufactures out there
selling networking cards, thus keeping the price down, and compatibillity
stable among different brands.
Charles Marks, please address E-Mail as follows,
from INTERNET: sempco!cma...@wupost.wustl.edu
UUCP: wupost.wustl.edu!sempco!cmarks
Infomaniac to the bone!
Kevin M Mccarthy
> Can it:
> Act as a 14.4Kbps or V.fast modem?
> Be made compatible with the AT&T VideoPhone?
> Do 2-way or multi-way audio/video teleconferencing over an ethernet
> connection?
>
> The PhonePak is an interesting product, but it has nowhere near the
> overwhelming flexibility that the AV Macs give you with their built-in
> 3210 DSP.
>
> +++++++
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
> +
Ok, look I don't want to get in to these arguments because I really
think they belong on c.s.a.advocacy, BUT, this is stupid. Marc, you aren't
going to sway anyone here. Go buy a mac and bother the Macintosh Groups.
I am not going to Slam the Macs or IBMs. They are good machines, but
not the right machines for me. But I DO NOT go to the IBM and Mac newsgroups
and tell them that Apple and Big Blue are clueless and that they should all
sell their machines and buy Amigas. (which is pretty much what you've said
about Macs here.) So please stop this pointless argument. If the AV Mac is a
good machine for you then BUY ONE! Don't tell us what Machine is right for us.
--
Kevin McCarthy sig...@krypton.mankato.msus.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If I were a carpenter, I'd hammer on my piglet, I'd collect the $7 and I'd buy
a big prosthetic forehead and wear it on my real head." -They Might Be Giants
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELLO! I'm a .signature virus! Join in and copy me into yours!
Edward D. Berger
Iowans with their hype, and have them said Iowans communicate their hype
to the ends of the earth with endless repetition.
-Ed Berger
eb...@andrew.cmu.edu
Russell McOrmond
: I was there for the same demo that MB was and was much less
: impressed with what I saw. A lot of the stuff I saw was not all
: that wonderful.
What you are saying is something I've said all along. Amiga may
have the HARDWARE, but they don't have the SOFTWARE or the VISION.
Apple has a VISION and the SOFTWARE, but they don't have the hardware,
and they have too many LAWYERS that skew everything they do.
You won't likely find someone who HATES the company Apple as much as
I do, but anyone who gets away from discussing 'toys' (IE: Hardware
without the software to drive it such as the Amiga) you will see that they
have a few good ideas. I would OBVIOUSLY rather the Amiga became the
hardware platform for these standard tools, but they aren't even attempting
to hit that market.
In my mind the future holds a time when hardware is TRULY irrelevant : You
buy your application and stick it into 'your computer' and don't care about
brand names of the 'hardware'. We talk over networks using simple to use
multi-media communications tools without the slightest worry of
incompatibilities between different vendors. We buy the best tool for our
specific job.
We have an automobile industry where a Ford, GM, Chrysler or whatever can
drive on the same ROADS. Yes, you have to go back to the same manufacturer
for parts when something breaks down. Once you learn how to drive a
car, you will have very little trouble driving on the SAME roads with
a different car at some other time.
Proprietary operating systems like AmigaDOS (And MacOS, Windows, etc)
do not help anyone. Abandoning networking projects to become an 'option'
so that the computer does not 'communicate out of the box' does not help.
Betting the farm on a competitor for the Nintendo and Sega class of
machines in order to survive does not instill confidence that the
'Tool' class computers are going to last.
We'll see what the future holds. You may not like Apple or their
Macintosh product, but see past the shortcomings of their current offerings.
I think that companies like IBM (OS/2), Micoroft(WindowsNT) and Apple (??)
will more likely catch up on the technology than Commodore will catch
up on the 'dreams for the future'.
Will Commodore honestly see a future?
Jimmy Chan
> <rambling removed>
Soooo What?
When are you going to buy your Mac? I've noticed that you kept saying that
Macs have more software, etc than Amigas for many, many postings. I've
yet to see you put your money where your mouth is. When are you going to
put up and shut up?
Re: Marc's Dream for the Future: getting a life
--
ji...@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu
"My A3000 runs Mac software better than Macs." -Marc Barrett
Roger Earl
>hehehehehehehehehehehhehehehehehe....
>Sorry, automatic reaction to MB posts...
Ditto. =) MB is gonna have to change his name if he wants anyone to take him
seriously again. I just got a real kick out of the big Mac praising and the
bit about wondering if there are any realtime framegrabbers for the Amiga. He
pays less and less attention to the real world everyday.
--
_
|_) _ __ Roger Earl
| \(_)(_/ Wizard Online 604-322-3232
_/ r...@outb.wimsey.bc.ca
Russell McOrmond
: Well from my understanding Commodore has developed their networking hardware,
To push my most used quote again:
"HARDWARE IS IRRELEVANT".
That's the problem with Amiga users - They have hardware on the brain.
The Amiga 'hardware' is perfectly fine, but hardware is useless without
the proper software to drive it. The difference between using
a computer as a TOOL or using it as a TOY is the applications that one
uses.
The 'networking' that I am talking about is the software. Call it AS225r2,
or call it 'Vapourware', it is still not being included with the Operating
System and thus compatible communications software will never have a
large enough market to be viable on the Amiga platform.
So 'Unix Style' TCP/IP isn't the best way to go - It's a heck of a lot
better than NOTHING which is what we have for 'Native AmigaDOS'.
At least CBM had the vision to get the SANA-II specification out the
door, but that just defines the hardware layer. We have a number of
incompatible application layers (AS225R2, AmiTCP, "Envoy") which
slows the development of applications for this platform (O.S.!)
considerably.
: Charles Marks, please address E-Mail as follows,
: from INTERNET: sempco!cma...@wupost.wustl.edu
: UUCP: wupost.wustl.edu!sempco!cmarks
: Infomaniac to the bone!
Todd M. Lewis
In article <CDKwr...@news.iastate.edu> bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett)
writes:
>I attended a short demo given by an Apple rep recently, and I was fairly
>impressed with what he had to say.
[well-stated rehash of Apple rep's demo deleted]
> He said that communications
>is what Apple is gearing all of their long-term plans around.
First of all, Marc, let me congratulate you on the general tone of
your message. You didn't yell, and you didn't call anybody names.
We can hope this is the start of a trend.
Second, let me point out that this guy is a sales rep, i.e., you were
supposed to be impressed. He layed out a vision of the future and
told you (sold you) Apple's role in it, and you swallowed it whole.
That's ok, just keep that in mind.
Apple does have something Commodore lacks: someone who can sell not
only their machines, but who can sell their future too.
> I think this vision of the future for computers is a correct one. It
>probably surprises no one that I use computers almost 100% for
communications,
>and I think this is true for MANY people.
Some purists among us would argue that what you do falls outside the ideal
of "communications", though you've made great strides in this post.
That you believe in the presented future is as much a testament to the
rep's salesmanship as to your vision.
>This vision by Apple can be seen in their newest computers,
[Description of Apple's AV machines deleted]
>Finally, I see Apple, sometime soon, developing
>a monitor with a video camera built-in and making this monitor standard with
>special packages, [...]
Classic Apple evangelism. You see Apple developing products, sometime soon.
You don't see Commodore developing products, ever. Perhaps your vision is
somewhat selective. even imaginative.
> Let's see what one would have to add to an Amiga to do desktop audio/video
>teleconferencing:
[list o' stuff deleted]
> So, you could spend $2000 in hardware on an already-expensive $2500
>A4000 and still not have the hardware and software to do two-way a/v
>teleconferencing, while for $2500 a Mac Centris 660AV comes with everything
>(except the camera) as standard hardware and software.
So, buy a Mac Centris. Then you can hang out in the Mac groups.
> It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such vision for the future
>of computing.
It should be very clear that Commodore has NO such salesmanship in the field
to sell you a vision of the future. This sales rep sold you about $8000
worth of technology that doesn't exist yet and you are drawing conclusions
about Commodore based on it. Do you do this favor for the Zenith, IBM,
Dell, SUN and DEC groups too, or are we specially blessed?
>Networking is at the heart of this vision by Apple, and
>Commodore completely dissolved their networking department and totally washed
>their hands of it by completely turning it over to the third-party companies.
They have taken the most prudent step toward getting their networking
technology to market under existing conditions. In this case, that means
third-party companies.
>The only vision Commodore has for the future is merely giving their computers
>faster CPUs and better graphics and color.
Wrong. Staying in business is a higher priority for them right now.
They seem to have taken some rather dramatic steps in that direction of late.
> BTW, people have ridiculed the idea of a Mac being able to serve as a
>telephone answering machine, but the point is that the computer can do it,
>and do it very inexpensively.
To be fair, people have ridiculed the idea of answering machines in any form
since the dawn of time. That they (answering machines, not people) happen
to be occasionally useful not withstanding, they will continued to be
ridiculed. Get used to it.
> [virtues of AV macs as communication machines deleted]
So, buy a mac and start communicating. Preferably in a different set
of newsgroups.
> This ability to take commands over the phone could be handy, if you were
>careful with it. The AV Mac's voice recognition can be set up to trigger
>with a keyword, like "computer".
Ten (count 'em) years ago we got a demo of a card from Texas Inst. that did
voice recognition in an IBM-XT. It could answer the phone and take messages,
and you could give it voice commands to control software. I got a demo
of the AV Macs from an Apple rep the other day, and the voice recognition
was almost as good on them as it was on that TI card way back then. Which
is to say, if I ever become paraplegic or quadraplegic a may be interested,
but if I can still twich enough to control the computer any other way I'll
opt for other user interfaces--at least until the technology gets a whole
lot better.
> You could give it a secret keyword, then
>use that keyword to make your Mac do things merely by giving it a phone call.
>For this feature to work would require software to be written to exploit it,
>and I expect third-party companies to write such software.
You count on 3rd party companies to make the Mac do wonders, while you
strafe C= for letting 3rd parties do anything that could improve their
situation. Your double standard is showing...
>My point again is that a $2500 A4000 could not do it [...]
>while, for $2500, a Mac C660AV comes with (almost) everything [...]
So buy a mac and go away.
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
--
Todd_...@unc.edu (919) 962-0101 "This sentence no verb."
Peter Simons
bar...@iastate.edu (Marc N. Barrett) writes:
> [the same stuff as always deleted]
10. *****
Q: How should I react to crackpot messages?
Crackpot postings and email are very often religious or sexual in
nature, but sometimes take other peculiar forms. These are in a way
very sad cases, since they are likely reflect bad personal problems or
even mental disturbances. These cases need professional help, and the
net is not the place to try it, nor is it a suitable media for serious
treatment. Flames certainly won't help matters. We can only wish that
the poster realizes his/her own state, and seeks proper help.
What should an ordinary user do about such postings on the news.
The best course of action is plain ignore them even if you would itch
to respond. Put the subject (or the offender's address) in your news
kill file. [...]
Following up the crackpot posting by condemning comments is
self-defeating, because many of these ill perverts get a significant
part of their kicks out of the attention they are able to stir up by
their crackpot behavior. In a sick person's disturbed mind even
strongly negative attention is often better than none. Don't oblige on
the net since it will only make matters worse.
bye, Peter
----- Peter Simons, Germany
Jenkinson's Law: It won't work.
j...@ponder.csci.unt.edu
computing." Computing does NOT equal communications. And, although we
have been using computers as communication devices for years that is NOT
their primary purpose and that is NOT the way most people do/will communicate.
That being said let me say what *nobody* has for desktop video
communicaiton -- SOFTWARE! Video communication over the net is a COMPRESSION
problem - that hardware is elimentary and relatively inexpensive. Mac does
not have this software and neither does anyone else -- the algorithm hasn't
been invented yet.
In conclusion, do I want to pay extra for hardware on a machine I
*will never use*? No, I don't think so. Do I want to pay for a standard
ethernet connection, DSP, etc so I can wait for video communication to
hit the stands? I can guerentee you one thing, Marc, by the time video
communication ala net comes around all the current machines out *today* will
be out-dated pieces of scrap metal.
Not to mention the NTSC digitizing and compression is much easier w/ Amiga.
Ciao...
- Jason
BTW: If you think ol Big Brother is going to let you make free video-calls
ala net you have another thing coming. Come out of the woods, Marc.
--
| Jason B West | "If I owned Hell and Texas, I'd rent out Texas |
| j...@ponder.csci.unt.edu | and live in Hell." |
| CS Senior | United We Stand America info line (214)960-9100 |
| Univ of North Texas | New: $15 *family* memberships available |
Andrew Kemmis Smith
> I attended a short demo given by an Apple rep recently, and I was fairly
[Much standard Barrett crap deleted]
>
>+++++++
> ++++ Marc Barrett -MB-
> ++ IRC nick: Cyclone | e-mail: bar...@iastate.edu
> +
Mark could you please get the hell OUT OF THIS NEWS GROUP! Stay in advocacy
where you belong and please do not waste so much god-damn bandwidth with your
crap! Advocacy is the news group for this - and I for one do not read it bcoz
of the amount of crap in there - so stay the hell away from the useful
newsgroups before I send someone around to physically silence you!
-Thankyou
-Andrew Smith
Stephen Kurlow
---
Stephen Kurlow.
Software Engineer, Sydney, Australia. Internet: sku...@socs.uts.edu.au
Paul Cardwell
Marc,
Since your really interested in how and what Apple is doing
get a copy of FORTUNE magazine July 26, 1993. It has your main man
on the over John Sculley (even though he isn't top dog, but is
chairman of the board). It's a good article.
Paul
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Arc Wave, real life: Paul Cardwell | INet Address: a...@judy.indstate.edu |
|___________________________/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\____________________________|
`---------------------------A4000/040,Linux,OS/2----------------------------'